PT145.S4.Q4 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The director hypothesizes that negative reviews were not the reason that filmgoers stayed away from the director’s film. The director instead offers an alternative explanation for the film’s small opening weekend audience, based on observations about potential viewers: the small audience was because of a small initial pool of interested filmgoers being split among the director’s film and other, similar films that weekend.

The director assumes that negative reviews couldn’t also have contributed to the low turnout. The director also assumes that if a filmgoer sees a competing film in the same weekend, that filmgoer will be less likely to see the director’s film.

This doesn’t strengthen the director’s hypothesis, as the argument is that the low audience turnout on the film’s opening weekend was only caused by competition from other films, and not by reviews. If anything, this might weaken by making the bad reviews more impactful.

This strengthens by affirming the assumption that filmgoers who saw a competing film would be less likely to see the director’s film. This makes it more reasonable to claim that competing films are the true explanation for the lower audience.

Even with a high total number of filmgoers on the opening weekend, the pool of viewers for films like the director’s could still be small, so this doesn’t clearly affect the argument.

Without knowing anything about the audience turnout for those other films relative to the director’s film, this doesn’t help us determine whether reviews are likely to have affected the turnout for the director’s film.

This is irrelevant, because we already know that only a small number of people like the kind of film made by the director, regardless of how they feel about other types of films.

Question

96% of people who answer get this correct

This is a slightly challenging question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 130

138

75% 146

Question Stem Tags

Strengthen

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Eliminating options

Popularity Avg. score

151

96%

164

152

156

151

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 145 - Section 4 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action